Loading...
2015 - October 5Planning Commission October 5, 2015 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange October 5, 2015 Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits ABSENT: Commissioner Correa STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Willits led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: Commissioner Correa was absent. All other Commissioners were present. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS Ms. Roseberry reminded the Commission about the Planning Officials Forum being held on October 22, 2015. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 Motion was made to approve the minutes as written: MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. 1 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 2.2 ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 28 -15 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY TENTATIVE TRACT 0036 -15 (17645) FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ON A TRIANGULARLY- SHAPED PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF WASHINGTON AVENUE AND HAMLIN STREET. John Reekstin, the applicant from The Olson Company, explained how they had met with the neighbors who wanted a community that was consistent with the existing zoning and their proposed development was in conformance with the zoning. He explained the reason they had for processing the tentative tract map on its own. He was asking for approval of the tentative tract map rather than the resolution of denial and explained the reasons for this request. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Gladson and Willits NOES: Commissioner Glasgow ABSENT: Commissioner Correa ABSTAIN: Commissioner Simpson MOTION CARRIED. 2 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 3. CONTINUED HEARING: 3.1 ZONE CHANGE 1274 -14; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0778 -14; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17758; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4749 -14 & ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 1837 -14 — ORANGE -OLIVE RESIDENTIAL (MBK HOMES) Item continued from the September 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting approvals to develop a 2.33 -acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 detached single family residential condominium units. LOCATION: 2025 N. ORANGE -OLIVE ROAD RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31 -15 recommending to the City Council of the City of Orange their adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1837 -14 including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of Zone Change 1274 -14, a request to approve a zone change from Limited Business (C -1) to Residential Multi - Family Specific Plan [R -3 (SP)] and approval of the associated Orange -Olive Residential Specific Plan; and approval of Tentative Tract Map 17758 (TTM 0033 -14), Major Site Plan Review 0778 -14 and Design Review Committee 4749 -14. Discussion: Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. She explained that the feedback from the public over the years concerned parking and privacy issues. Those issues have been addressed by staff. Sunti Kumjim, applicant, narrated a PowerPoint presentation. He gave an overview of active MBK developments in the area and the current condition of this project site. He explained that the initial feedback from staff and the community was they did not like the density, the height related to the privacy issues, and insufficient parking. The applicant has now reduced the density, and addressed the privacy and parking concerns. The Commission had questions for the applicant asking who was responsible for regulating the on -site parking and would there be signage in the common areas; what would be the parking impacts for the construction workers; if the City owned trees would be replaced; would parking tags be required; how would oversized vehicles be handled; and what was the lighting plan for the project. Public Hearing was opened. Carol Grunpensperg_er address on file, had two areas of concern which were overflow parking in the surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed setback requirement between 3 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 the R -1 and R -3 zones. She was requesting the applicant put up some type of tree screening along the R -1 and R -3 border. Eric Jacobson address on file, also wanted the screening of the trees and to ensure those trees would be maintained. Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Kumjim returned to address the concerns voiced by the public. He explained that the CC &Rs would stipulate that garages would be used for parking only. He also stated they looked at the tree screening suggestion but it appeared their mitigation measures had met all their concerns. Ms. Le addressed the issue of the waiver of the code and the height standards of this site specific development's Orange -Olive Residential Specific Plan. The Commission made additional comments in which they felt the project was a good fit for the neighborhood; suggested using podocarpus for the screening between the two zones; liked the architecture; it would increase the property value; understood the public concern with the screening; were concerned with how the backyard landscaping would be controlled; liked it was reduced to two - stories; and were concerned that the Association could modify Condition 7. Ms. Le explained that the applicant has given a conceptual landscape plan and the Design Review Committee has asked that the landscape plan come back to them prior to issuance of building permits. They did not address the screening on along the eastern edge of the property and the Commission could make a condition or recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Gladson would like that screening detail be considered by the Design Review Committee. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31 -15 recommending to the City Council of the City of Orange their adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1837 -14 including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of Zone Change 1274 -14, a request to approve a zone change from Limited Business (C -1) to Residential Multi- Family Specific Plan [R -3 (SP)] and approval of the associated Orange -Olive Residential Specific Plan; and approval of Tentative Tract Map 17758 (TTM 0033 -14), Major Site Plan Review 0778 -14 and Design Review Committee 4749 -14 with one additional condition: 1. Look at additional screening opportunities when the Design Review Committee considers the final landscape plan. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. 4 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 4. NEW HEARINGS: 4.1 VARIANCE NO. 2236-15 — ORTIZ RESIDENCE The property consists of a significant downslope from the public right -of -way, is only 40 feet wide, and has no on -site parking. As a result of the property conditions, three Variances are proposed as follows: 1. A Variance to allow an uncovered parking pad to be maintained in a required front yard setback. 2. A Variance to allow the retaining wall for the parking pad, plus a railing around the parking pad to exceed a 42 inch wall height limitation in the required front yard setback. 3. A Variance to allow an existing 51 inch high retaining wall near the property line to have a new 42 inch high guardrail on top of it. LOCATION: 490 S. HILL STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project is for accessory structures including a raised parking pad and low fencing. The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because of the setback Variance for the parking pad and exceedance of fence height. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 30 -15 approving three Variances. 1. Allow an uncovered parking pad to be maintained in a required front yard setback; 2. Allow the retaining wall for the parking pad, plus a railing around the parking pad to exceed a 42 inch wall height limitation in the required front yard setback; and 3. Allow an existing 51 inch high retaining wall near the front property line to have a new 42 inch high guardrail on top of it. Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. He discussed the issues concerning the parking pad, the retaining wall, and the guardrail. The Commission questioned staff about the existing 42" wall and whether that would hold a guardrail; possible headlight issues; and whether other homes in the area had the 61 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 same problem. Mr. Ortlieb clarified that the third Variance was for parking in the front yard setback. Public Hearing was opened. Javier Hernandez applicant, explained that due to the size of the lot, it was very difficult to build a garage and so they were making this request for a parking pad. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission asked if there was parking on just one side of the road since it was a narrow street. They are told it was a one -way street with parking on both sides. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 30 -15 approving three Variances. 1. Allow an uncovered parking pad to be maintained in a required front yard setback; 2. Allow the retaining wall for the parking pad, plus a railing around the parking pad to exceed a 42 inch wall height limitation in the required front yard setback; and 3. Allow an existing 51 inch high retaining wall near the front property line to have a new 42 inch high guardrail on top of it: MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. G Planning Commission October 5, 2015 4.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2976 -15 — VILLAGE AT ORANGE SIGN PROGRAM The applicant proposes to implement a new sign program for an existing multi- tenant and multi- building commercial shopping center called The Village at Orange on North Tustin Street. The new program will provide more current design standards and specifications for signage specific to this center. LOCATION: 1500 E. VILLAGE WAY NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities). This exemption applies to the project because it involves implementing a new sign program to govern the design and installation of signs on an existing commercial shopping center. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 33 -15 approving the master sign program for the Village at Orange. Discussion: Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. She explained the one issue which concerned how the installation of the new signs would take place over time. The Commission questioned staff about the length of time the existing signs have been on the site; the height of the pylon signs; the connection of the architectural design with the buildings on the site; the illumination of the 30' signs at night; the line of sight of the monument signs located at exits along Tustin Street; and how new tenants will comply with the new sign program. Connie O'Connor, from Sign Advantage, Inc., complimented the staff and the Design Review Committee, who did not let the applicant get to the Planning Commission until everything was designed to their satisfaction. She indicated there would be no flashing or blinking lights. Public Hearing was opened. There were no public speakers. The Commission felt it was time for an updated sign program; and questioned the possible problem with nesting birds. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 33 -15 approving Conditional Use Permit 2976 -15 and Design Review No. 4797 -15 approving the master sign program for the Village at Orange located at 1500 E. Village Way: 7 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission October 5, 2015 4.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2985-15 — WATSON'S The applicant is requesting modification of an existing ABC Type 41 license (On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) to a Type 47 license (On -Sale General — Eating Place) and to expand the service area to include the adjoining tenant space and outdoor dining area at the restaurant in the Plaza Historic District. LOCATION: 116 -120 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQS) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project consists of licensing of alcohol sales at an existing restaurant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 32 -15 approving an ABC Type 41 license at a restaurant with an outdoor dining area and denying an ABC Type 47 license. Discussion: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. Alan Haustad, General Manager for Our Family Restaurant Group, addressed who they are and why they are requesting a liquor license. He said their concept was not just liquor but it was more about a full service restaurant. He explained that managing a liquor license was important and there are no alcohol related issues at their Villa Park restaurant. Bill Skeffington, restaurant owner, felt obtaining the Type 47 license would keep the business going past 7:00 at night and it would remain a family - friendly restaurant. The Commission had a concern with the soda bar being in the same location where alcohol would be served; questioned the request to be open 24 hours the first Friday of the month; questioned if it could be assumed that the market draw would be Chapman students; asked how the beverages would be paired with the food; and the fact that the Police Department was opposed to the Type 47 license and the Commission was concerned with that. Public Hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in favor of the Type 47 license: Scott Parker address on file, had been the previous owner of Watson's for 45 years and understood the need for the Type 47 license. 9 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 Spencer Muir address on file, stated he is a deputy sheriff with the Orange County Sheriff's Department and has been assigned to Villa Park for the last four years. He has seen how responsible Mr. Skeffington has been at the Rockwell's in Villa Park. He stated they do not get a lot of service calls at Rockwell's and he has never seen an alcohol related issue there and he did not foresee a problem at Watson's. Tony Pacheco address on file, was the applicant's ABC consultant. He pointed out if the CUP was approved, the existing on -sale beer and wine license would be canceled upon the issuance of the on -sale general license and there would not be an increase in the license count. He felt Mr. Skeffington deserved a chance to compete with other restaurants that are similarly licensed in the area. Don St. Jean address on file, explained he has been a resident of Orange for 29 years and he has managed the building Watson's is located in. He said when the property was put up for sale, they were approached by different businesses which wanted to cut the restaurant into 2 and 3 spaces. If that happened, the Watson's name would be lost and Mr. Skeffington is proposing to retain the name. No one spoke in opposition to the Type 47 license. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Willits stated that the reports the Police Department had provided were conclusive and he wanted to ask questions of them. Public Hearing was reopened. Lieutenant Dave Nichols, of the Orange Police Department, explained that the number of part-one crimes in District 13 North were higher than other districts in Orange. They are concerned with alcohol related crimes. The Commission asked if these crimes were coming from the bars or the restaurants. Lt. Nichols said the eateries have a lower incident than the bar locations. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission made additional comments saying it was a difficult decision since the eateries are better at controlling the drinks when people are eating food; concerned with how the bar would be separated from the family restaurant side to the adult beverage side and wanted to see a separation; torn denying the request to any applicant in this area because it should be based on survival; concerned with the tie in to the candy and liquor concept; the line has to be drawn and it's difficult to go against the Police Department and staff's recommendation; sensitive to the business staying competitive but concerned with high crime in the area; and could support the Type 47 license because it does have tight controls in place. 10 Planning Commission October 5, 2015 Ms. Roseberry explained that if the Planning Commission does decide to approve the request, then staff would need to return with a different resolution. She said that if the Commission wanted a separate area for alcohol then it would be creating a bar area. Mr. Skeffington indicated they could make it so alcohol was not served at the soda bar and they could just serve alcohol at the tables. Mr. Haustad explained that ABC requires different glassware for alcoholic beverages. Ms. Moshier stated that the staff findings were based on the Police Department's recommendations and their analysis of the Type 47 license. Motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution to the Planning Commission to approve the Type 47 license including the additional tenant space and the patio area: Chair Gladson stated the reasons for approval included the restaurant being competitive with other restaurants in the Plaza historic district; the Police Department shared that the majority of their research found that the crime issues were tied more to the pubs; and being consistent with this type of environment inside the Plaza area. MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, and Simpson NOES: Commissioner Willits ABSENT: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. II Planning Commission October 5, 2015 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, October 19, 2015. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa Meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 12